We Should Start a Religion

[mediahasyou]

seriously...

This would not be an actual religion.

We would move out west or to any place that is not already inhabited by humans. Even some places in New Hampshire would work.

We would start a church that would have one rule:
You must live on the church grounds.

As a church, we would gain tax exempt status. When new "members" are added, these new members could buy new land so our church grounds could grow.

The State would have to respect our church to respect the first amendment. On the church grounds we would be more free from state control since the state would consider it one piece of private property.

However, in reality there would be no church grounds. All of us would own our own land and private property would be respected.

The church would be a religion in name only. It would be our libertarian society.

[heavenlyboy34]

seriously...

This would not be an actual religion.

We would move out west or to any place that is not already inhabited by humans. Even some places in New Hampshire would work.

We would start a church that would have one rule:
You must live on the church grounds.

As a church, we would gain tax exempt status. When new "members" are added, these new members could buy new land so our church grounds could grow.

The State would have to respect our church to respect the first amendment. On the church grounds we would be more free from state control since the state would consider it one piece of private property.

However, in reality there would be no church grounds. All of us would own our own land and private property would be respected.

The church would be a religion in name only. It would be our libertarian society.

Why go through all the trouble when you can just eliminate the State? ;):D

[mediahasyou]

Why go through all the trouble when you can just eliminate the State? ;):D

As the libertarian society grows, we would be eliminating the state from the inside.

[heavenlyboy34]

As the libertarian society grows, we would be eliminating the state from the inside.

ok, cool. Thanx.

[Kludge]

Non-Aggression Principlelism (AKA NAPism, NAPpers)

Belief in a spiritual respect which demands that everyone respect the will of others.

[M House]

The religion would hold itself together until the issue of child porn came up.

[Theocrat]

seriously...

This would not be an actual religion.

We would move out west or to any place that is not already inhabited by humans. Even some places in New Hampshire would work.

We would start a church that would have one rule:
You must live on the church grounds.

As a church, we would gain tax exempt status. When new "members" are added, these new members could buy new land so our church grounds could grow.

The State would have to respect our church to respect the first amendment. On the church grounds we would be more free from state control since the state would consider it one piece of private property.

However, in reality there would be no church grounds. All of us would own our own land and private property would be respected.

The church would be a religion in name only. It would be our libertarian society.

The State is not going to give you tax-exempt status just because you follow a religion based on one rule. Historically, the Church was given tax-exempt status because it was understood that its ministries were more charitable than profitable in helping society. Like the civil government, it was generally understood that the Church was a form of government ordained by God, with responsibilities and duties different from the State, like helping the poor, nursing the sick, feeding the hungry, and housing the homeless. Those statesmen in government knew that the Church needed its funds to accomplish these works of charity, so they granted the tax-exempt status to them.

The religion you would start does not even meet the criteria of being a true religion because it is not founded by a true Church based on the true revelation. Your means to subvert government by purchasing land is not really a charitable ministry to society, in my opinion. There are better ways to subvert government in its tyrannical estates, and you do not need to form a religion to do so. Ironically, you're right to assume that it would begin with a church (or the Church) because it is only through worship of God that a libertarian society will come about.

[torchbearer]

Non-Aggression Principlelism (AKA NAPism, NAPpers)

Belief in a spiritual respect which demands that everyone respect the will of others.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Love thy neighbour as oneself.
(I believe asking the government to spy on your neighbors infringes on the above)

Precursor to ulitilitarianism: http://www.utilitarianism.com/jesus-christ.html

[heavenlyboy34]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Love thy neighbour as oneself.
(I believe asking the government to spy on your neighbors infringes on the above)

Precursor to ulitilitarianism: http://www.utilitarianism.com/jesus-christ.html

Kewl! I like utilitarianism quite a bit too. :) Nice post. ~hug~

[Truth Warrior]

Kewl! I like utilitarianism quite a bit too. :) Nice post. ~hug~

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilitarianism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilitarianism)

Hmmmm? So just how many individuals are you prepared to sacrifice towards achieving "the greatest happiness for the greatest number"?

50% - 1 for the sake of 50% + 1? :p :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilitarianism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utilitarianism)

Hmmmm? So just how many individuals are you prepared to sacrifice to achieving "the greatest happines to the greatest number"? 50% - 1? :p :rolleyes:

My bad-I was thinking of J.S. Mill's work, which is totally different. n/m :( Thanks for catching that, btw. :)

[Truth Warrior]

My bad-I was thinking of J.S. Mill's work, which is totally different. n/m :( Thanks for catching that, btw. :) Actually it's not.<IMHO> That's just Mill in a weak moment along with Bentham, as I seem to recall. ;)

"On Liberty", ROCKS and RULES.<IMHO> :D

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually it's not.<IMHO> That's just Mill in a weak moment along with Bentham, as I seem to recall. ;)

"On Liberty", ROCKS and RULES.<IMHO> :D

That's the one I'm reading now! I'm on Chapter 3-"Of Individuality, as one of the Elements of Well-Being". :D Brilliant stuff, it is. In this text that I have, "On Liberty" is followed by "Representative Government" and "Utilitarianism". (sorry about my blonde moment, TW...I'm multitasking)

[phill4paul]

" I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me as a member". Twain or someone else.

[Truth Warrior]

" I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me as a member". Twain or someone else. Groucho Marx. ;) :D

[phill4paul]

Groucho Marx. ;) :D I knew it was from Groucho "or some one else." but I thought it was originally attributed to Twain?

A debate that I don't intend to get into as it seems to be a cutthroat one.:D

[Truth Warrior]

I knew it was from Groucho "or some one else." but I thought it was originally attributed to Twain?

A debate that I don't intend to get into as it seems to be a cutthroat one.:D I've read a lot of Twain, and have NEVER seen it, FWIW. ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

I've read a lot of Twain, and have NEVER seen it, FWIW. ;)

I've read the classics (Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer). What do you suggest I read next? :confused:

[phill4paul]

I've read a lot of Twain, and have NEVER seen it, FWIW. ;)


Supposedly it was a quoted phrase attributed to him. Not written. errrrrr. see ya did it..I will stop now.:p

[phill4paul]

I've read the classics (Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer). What do you suggest I read next? :confused:

"The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County". This is the one that got me started on Twain.

I've always loved "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court". It appealed to my love of arthurian legend.

"The Innocents Abroad".

Truly everything. I thank you for asking because it has re-ignited my Clements spark and there has been works published since last I read some 20 years ago.

Thank you.:)

[heavenlyboy34]

"The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County". This is the one that got me started on Twain.

I've always loved "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court". It appealed to my love of arthurian legend.

"The Innocents Abroad".

Truly everything. I thank you for asking because it has re-ignited my Clements spark and there has been works published since last I read some 20 years ago.

Thank you.:)

n/p. I grew up on the classic Twain stories when I was a youngin, and I still love his stuff. :) Thank YOU for the info. ~hug~

[Wendi]

As wonderful as this idea sounds. I fear it would end rather badly. All it would take is one member of the "church" to do something the government didn't like, to end up with another "operation showtime (http://www.wizardsofaz.com/waco/waco3.html)."

[Truth Warrior]

As wonderful as this idea sounds. I fear it would end rather badly. All it would take is one member of the "church" to do something the government didn't like, to end up with another "operation showtime (http://www.wizardsofaz.com/waco/waco3.html)." Do the terms "Branch Davidians" and "Jonesboro" ring any familiar bells? :eek:

[Wendi]

Do the terms "Branch Davidians" and "Jonesboro" ring any familiar bells? :eek: Yeah. Click the link. :p

[Truth Warrior]

Yeah. Click the link. :p Ahh, just missed that, sorry. :o

Thanks! :)

[heavenlyboy34]

edit:n/m

[revolutionisnow]

This is a good idea. Have sermons about no taxes and gun ownership, stuff like that. We would need a LDL also to stick up for our beliefs and belittle anyone who opposed them.

[Andrew-Austin]

Would Ron Paul be the religion's holy prophet?

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Some might consider the non-aggression axiom to be religious. Admittedly I do adhere to it with a similarly rigid fervor.

[Kludge]

I'd be very willing to give this serious consideration, but not while my grandfather (a baptist minister) still breathes. My entire family disapproves of my agnostic atheism, a betrayal of tradition, certainly, and a judgment upon them that their beliefs are, in my opinion, unethical and "incorrect". This could be a great way to preach pacifism (not passivism!), ethical behavior, and also build community for both theists and nontheists (obviously, we will not be stressing agnosticism or atheism).

I believe there is something more to respect for human life (which is essentially what the NAP is) than we give it credit for. It holds society together, even when God is not involved. It makes life worth living, and permits capitalistic systems to function properly as a medium for win-win situations. I don't think it's a stretch to consider pacifism a spiritual commitment.

No gods, no idols, just people seeking to teach ethics to the selfish while demanding the same respect from the collective selfishness which is the State; an offensive establishment which not only deems Man incapable of running his life, but demands that he is to pay the nation's Elite tribute so that they may crush that same Man's self-respect by controlling his life.

Even so, we must not remain "willfully ignorant" of our own actions. We must reexamine EVERYTHING we have done, and everything our ancestors have done. We must not bow to moral relativism. If we have EVER committed an act of aggression without regretting it, there will need to be some ritual, whether meditation or otherwise to ensure that the problem of disrespect does not arise again, in order to form a more perfect Man.